COMPARE IRISH & NEW ZEALAND DFs

Avgas

Bored with slat armour and Pirhanas for now....

how about this one?

COMPARE IRISH & NEW ZEALAND DFs

New Zealand….has the same basic mix of geographical remoteness /but dependence upon powerful states who effectively provide shadow security (Australia, US, etc.)

…okay their remoteness is a bit more extreme than ours….

One big security difference is they do not have Northern Ireland on their doorstep which has always been and remains our most obvious security threat….but one mainly containable by policing…..and political and diplomatic initiatives….


Land Army
New Zealand Army has 4,500 regular and 2,500 territorials…one light infantry regiment with two battalions, of which one is assigned for transport with Pirhana like LAVs…these two infantry battalions are assigned to what are in effect two battle group sized formations, with well integrated logistics, signals , engineers and artillery and cavalry elements, if one only just looks at the regular troops. When reserve infantry battalions are added, they have two well put together and meaningful brigades.


All much more sensible than our pretend ‘three brigade structure’.

They have a bit larger special forces contingent than our ARW…with at least three distinct squadrons….

which points to the obvious fact the our ARW should be made systematically larger and more differentiated…..


They have about six reservist territorial battalions which are probably of quite good quality as light infantry…

Their ratio is more like 3:1 for reserve to regular infantry battalions…whereas ours is 1:1

The big difference is the Kiwi’s have a larger air force and navy…their Navy has just over 2,000 full time sailors and they have 2 serious frigates, 2 logistics ships, 2 offshore patrol corvettes, and 4 inshore patrol vessels, plus a survey vessel and a diving ship.

Our Navy has under 1,500 personnel…and eight ships and compares reasonably with the NZ Navy in the sense that they are downsizing to EEZ protection and ditching ASW and ANZUS integrated naval task force war-fighting… (all with deep regret).

Their air force…has suffered the traumatic decision to get rid of their Skyhawks…they had debated getting second-hand F16s but the entire idea was ditched as too expensive given marginal air defence threats…..they have over 2,500 personnel and about 50 aircraft…the stars of which are 6 Orions and 5 Hercules…and they are not shy of choppers….12 old Hueys to be replaced by 8 brand new NH90s….and 5 Seasprites…for work with the Navy…and yes 12 basic trainers…..but nothing as fancy as our PC-9Ms….(why bother?)

Our Air Corps have under 1,000 personnel and 30 aircraft some of which are dubious….as regards what exact role or capability they provide…the best assets are the 2 CASAs (when they are not emergency landing in Kerry) and the new Aw139 choppers…).

Lessons?


We have too many infantry battalions deployed in a weak not very convincing three brigade structure

For any contingency (such as a North Ireland meets Bosnia scenario and the Brits leave overnight), where large numbers of infantry would be needed…the expedient of a mixture of mobilizing reserves would have to be relied upon anyway...the existing mix of 9 PDF and 9 RDF inf Bns would not be enough….In that sort of doomsday you'd be raising new battalions from scratch….this means we need more and crucially better quality reservists and a good central infantry training school (all v. doable over a few years).

For the 99.9% of the rest of the time 9 PDF inf Bns is too many!


A much smaller THREE battle group force would make more sense…one group available for en bloc PK deployment (or partial); one group on stand-by for domestic contingency; one group in a re-training/re-fit cycle.

Our Naval forces are okay more or less as it is….will have to do….

Our Air Corps needs to be increased in its capabilities….has no UAVs to replace the Cessna 172s….has two few Maritime Patrol aircraft….and too few choppers which are robust enough for naval SAR or special operations….or for overseas PK support.

I await fury, anger and just people posting to point I'm factually wrong about something Kiwi and detailed.....

But ya know...debate.....?

OS119

the glib, but also disturbingly accurate comparison between the military forces of Ireland and NZ is that one country has a policy defined, experience lead defence doctrine that has decided that the primary task of an Army is war-fighting, and has formed, trained and equipped its army to have that capability, and that all else, budget, basing, local economic impact and appearance are all secondary to that aim.

and the other is Ireland.

airvan

Good point. Will we ever see the day when the politicians of this country or indeed the military leadership get some joined up thinking about what kind of defence force we need? Probably not.

As for New Zealand, I think most of us have seen this before but it's worth repeating. Change the title New Zealand to Ireland an it makes even more sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo6fgZ-dbOw

concussion

Our Battalions are 1:1 on paper. I dread to think what strength our Reserve infantry is actually at. 2 full Bns, maybe.

OS119

ok, new doctrine time.

the foundation stone of the IA is the Infantry BattleGroup - it should be capable of operating in all conflicts, up to and including high-intensity conventional warfare. it should be a self-contained structure, but capable of working with other IA BG's in a Brigade formation in combat/PK/RE environment.

so, instead of a mythical 18 - yes 18 - infantry Bn's in the Regular and Reserve Army, with nothing like the number of men, or support (artillery, mobility, logistics, AD, engineers, CIS, Medical Spt etc) to actually get them into the field, i propose a 'reality' structure.

6 Regular Infantry Bn's. 3 rifle Coys, Spt Coy, HQ Coy, Patrol Coy.

2 Cavalry Regiments: each with 2 'light and fast' ISR Sqns, and 1 Medium Armoured Sqn.

4 Artillery Regts: 2 Light Gun, 1 AD and 1 UAV.

3 Engineer Regiments: 2 of Engineer Field Sqn's, and 1 of a 'Port and Maritime' Sqn, an Airfield Support Sqn, and an EOD Sqn.

2 Log Spt Regiments.

1 SF/SOF Regiment

thats 10,000 men.

Concussion makes a very valid point about the reserve - it has a massive 'paper role' in the IA's Order of Battle - but if, as is suggested 'elsewhere' it has perhaps 1200 to 1500 effective members spread over countless units in 3 theoretical Brigades, should it play any real role at all - could it be entirely re-roled as 2 pioneer/force-protection Bn's to be slotted into the regular units, either as part of a 'one Army' concept, or only in wartime conditions?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

At the moment, plans have been drafted up to drastically re-org the DF.

These plans were completed as of last month. Certain tweeks are being made, these changes may take a decade to complete, but it is going to happen.

Poccington

OS119 wrote: »

ok, new doctrine time.

the foundation stone of the IA is the Infantry BattleGroup - it should be capable of operating in all conflicts, up to and including high-intensity conventional warfare. it should be a self-contained structure, but capable of working with other IA BG's in a Brigade formation in combat/PK/RE environment.

so, instead of a mythical 18 - yes 18 - infantry Bn's in the Regular and Reserve Army, with nothing like the number of men, or support (artillery, mobility, logistics, AD, engineers, CIS, Medical Spt etc) to actually get them into the field, i propose a 'reality' structure.

6 Regular Infantry Bn's. 3 rifle Coys, Spt Coy, HQ Coy, Patrol Coy.

2 Cavalry Regiments: each with 2 'light and fast' ISR Sqns, and 1 Medium Armoured Sqn.

4 Artillery Regts: 2 Light Gun, 1 AD and 1 UAV.

3 Engineer Regiments: 2 of Engineer Field Sqn's, and 1 of a 'Port and Maritime' Sqn, an Airfield Support Sqn, and an EOD Sqn.

2 Log Spt Regiments.

1 SF/SOF Regiment

thats 10,000 men.

Concussion makes a very valid point about the reserve - it has a massive 'paper role' in the IA's Order of Battle - but if, as is suggested 'elsewhere' it has perhaps 1200 to 1500 effective members spread over countless units in 3 theoretical Brigades, should it play any real role at all - could it be entirely re-roled as 2 pioneer/force-protection Bn's to be slotted into the regular units, either as part of a 'one Army' concept, or only in wartime conditions?

I think I love you.

Smashing post.

Avgas

There is a worrying level of consensus emerging in those last posts...not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

OS119 is more or less TOTALLY RIGHT about building things around battle groups...

However, I would be more extreme and Spartan and say we can probably only afford three "light" NATO standard BGs based around THREE v. well equipped infantry battalions (if even that!)...with the usual extra bits of signals and arty and cav and whatever we can mix and match.

One of which would be our main overseas PK 'offer'....although I think the chances of DoD ever authorizing a proper Irish battle group overseas for say a UN or EU missions are remote. It could well be just lean Battalions with bits and pieces added at best, and maybe even just Coy formations.

Why am I so mean/savage?

I'm thinking that 10,000 establishment is no longer fiscally doable....our public finances are SOOOOOOOOO BAD......and this will last for at least 3-5 years if not the whole decade.

I believe Irish DF will more or less have to drop well below that level down to say 8-7,000......Yes I know that is v. controversial......

(I can hear the baying howls of protest)

BTW any reductions should come about in a phased way by a mix of age retirements and an early retirement scheme.....wouldn't support just a mass non-renewal of contracts for people who've just served 5 years and got their fitness and skills up to a certain level.....that would be dumb.

Remember Reserves!

My worry with OS119 plan would be would it give us a reasonably large reserve light infantry pool-say 5-10 'real' reserve battalions that could be worked up over six months if mobilized for a domestic emergency?

Getting reserves right is a major strategic need for us. We've never done it right. Not in the 1930s, when the 'Army' was a shell of circa 5,000, and not with 1950s 'integration' either.

IMHO Irish DF should be mainly a volunteer reservist force, with a small volunteer professional core at its centre, providing small fairly elite groups of operational core units, with the rest focused on making the reserves work well.

Remember, we have security scenarios where we would still need a good number of reliable reserve light infantry (not for war-fighting) ....in hopefully rare situations.....its a contingency you'd plan and train for...not an actual operation you likely be doing.....

REFORM IN THE AIR-OR SLASH AND BURN?

The idea that the three brigade structure or reserves are being looked at by somebody in POWER up there, is actually v. fearful, because the current mindset is 'slash and burn' in government circles.

You will NOT get from DoD and Dept of Financial Mismanagement a reasoned professional pitch such as OS119 has done.....so I fear crude amputations of bits of what passes for the DF's ORDBAT....maybe a poxy two brigade structure....?

Even when we had money they couldn't plan.

Maybe we could ask New Zealand DoD to a do a review of us?

concussion

benwavner wrote: »

At the moment, plans have been drafted up to drastically re-org the DF.

These plans were completed as of last month. Certain tweeks are being made, these changes may take a decade to complete, but it is going to happen.

Dang...my proposal for a new Bty. structure is going in tomorrow.

OS119

Avgas wrote: »

Remember Reserves!

i don't think a large reserve that plays a fundamental role within the Army's order of battle is possible within the current - and forseeable - Irish political context. the two things that the NATO use of reserves has shown is that those reservists must have decent employment protection in order to not just deploy, but to be sufficiently trained in order to be deployable, and that they need to be trained to a level where they are deployable after a relatively short period of build-up and OPTAG training. 2 months is the outside limit, 6 months is a waste of time - politicians won't sanction mobilisation of reserves until disaster stares them in the face, and at that stage a soldier who needs 6 months training is of no use to man nor beast.

as for the regular army and its size, certainly 'my' doctrine could be downsized to four BattleGroups and their attendant support in order to keep one overseas, but if you took it down to three you'd have major problems in peacetime - it also would give you no contingency if something goes wrong.

iceage

A major shake up of the Reserve maybe. A good or bad thing? I'm sure the ones that are in and are serious about the job would relish proper re-structure and intergration with their parent Units. As for the others...well this could also accelerate natural wastage.

Morpheus

Yes I for one would relish it...

problems all circulate around employment legislation...

in which case i foresee nothing happening

OS119

Morphéus wrote: »

Yes I for one would relish it...

problems all circulate around employment legislation...

in which case i foresee nothing happening

i certainly think that employment protection legislation needs doing, but i'm not sure it needs doing while the RDF is in no position to provide anything anyway, or even while the RDF is working towards being able to contribute to the order of battle.

it would be nice, because that would make recruitment and longer spells of training easier, but i'm not sure its essential.

if, for instance, the RDF abolished all its formed (ha!) units, and dismissed every soldier who hadn't achieved 'effectiveness' (however you might like to judge it) in the last two years - and then formed two 'Combat Support' Bn's with what was left, and just spent a year getting everyone upto speed on basic infantry work, pioneer roles and force protection, it would then have a case for going to the body politic and say 'right, we finally have a coherent, usable asset. if you give us employment protection we can justify all the money you've spent on us over the last 60 years'.

question is, what proportion of the effective strength of the RDF would stay given the replacement of all its current roles and units - infantry, cavalry, artillery, CIS, engineers etc - with just one?

concussion

I think I posted something along those lines here before, must see if I can find it. It didn't touch on structure but was along the same thinking of getting everyone's core skills up to scratch and standardised. Edit - found it

concussion wrote: »

Restructure the PDF as noted above - none of the existing units are at, or near their establisment. Neither do they have their requisite amount of weapons or equipment.

As for the RDF, I believe I noted here that a 1/3 reduction would work quite well. An RDF Inf Bn becomes the Reserve Coy of a PDF Bn, an RDF Arty Reg. becomes the Reserve Bty. of a PDF FAR etc etc.

2/3 of the senior officers and NCO's are going to be left without appointments. These people have dedicated 20 to 30 years to the organisation and I really have no viable options for what happens them - on the other hand, we either fill our current establishments or stop kidding ourselves.

Even without any change to units or establishments, I believe this year is an excellent time to really do something positive (and at the same time, I know nothing will actually happen) Without new recruits there is a massive amount of resources which will not be used over the year and on full time training. My hypothetical, theoretical suggestions are as follows:


Year 1

1. Focus on the basics - every man a rifleman. All units, Combat, CS and CSS start at the basics and spend the year bringing every Private, Corporal, Sergeant and Lieutenant up to a level where infantry platoon level tactics, fieldcraft and admin are at a level to match the PDF.
   
   Do this at sub-unit level over training nights and field days and at full time training under the supervision of the RDF BTC's with support from PDF BTC's.
2. Keep senior officers and NCO's away from all of this to prevent politics, backstabbing, rubberstamping etc from interrupting actual training. Instead, use the time to ensure that these people know their own jobs inside out, whether it's the Artillery Battery Commander or the Infantry RQ - plenty of time in DFTC with Arty School, IWW, Mil College etc. should do it.
3. Make fitness tests mandatory and wield both a carrot and a stick. Year 1 - attempt the Annual Fitness Test. Year 2 - No grat unless you pass. Year 3 - Lose your appointment unless you pass.
   
   At the end of the year, instead of just having Infantry assesments, extend them to the entire RDF. Inf units to supply a platoon each, CS and CSS sub-units to supply a section at least.

Year 2 - Senior officers and NCO's can go about bringing their (fit, competent soldiers) up to speed on their Corps skills. Round out the year with Corps assessments.

Year 3(and on) - balance Corps training with Infantry section and platoon tactics. Make it a requirement for a tactical exercise every two years for CS/CSS and once a year for Infantry. Infantry to continue with annual assessments of up to Company level, all others with Platoon level work every two years with Corps assessments every other year.




I don't think it's a lot to ask for - in my Arty unit we manage three weeks full time training with a separate Regimental deployment every year and the last two years have each seen a Platoon level tactical exercise. This is all in addition to training recruits throughout the year. Fitness is easy to achieve, the problem is with risk assessments and the fear of lawsuits.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62423034&postcount=54 From this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055700182&highlight=recruit+reserve

airvan

benwavner wrote: »

At the moment, plans have been drafted up to drastically re-org the DF.

These plans were completed as of last month. Certain tweeks are being made, these changes may take a decade to complete, but it is going to happen.

So any clues as to what kind of changes we're going to see? Which way is the wind blowing. Is it going to like some of sensible suggestions here or slash and burn?

There is absolutely no reason why the DF as a whole shouldn't be a small but highly trained and well equipped force which is difficult to get into by reasons of high recruiting standards. Something along the lines of any marine Corps or airborne units. Completely modernised and a credit to the country backed up by a realistic reserve somewhat along the lines of the US National Guard in terms of it's effectiveness.

iceage

Beyond the absolute basics here ie. fitness, SAA, soldiering etc which should in fact be the total responsibilty of each of the particular RDF units I fear that everything else has to happen at the highest levels first. Start at the top and work your way down so to speak..the whole fitness thing is a fecking joke though guys.

Would there be a resistance so to speak from above if there was a major shake up? Actually has there been any word from the new Minister as to what hes got on the books? Is he keeping a low profile or is it a case of no mun-no fun still. This post is addressed to the RDF specifically.

Local-womanizer

Havent heard a thing from the new minister,but mind you I havent really been out to listen much as of late.

I agree with others,in as much that the RDF can not move forward without proper employment legislation. After that,make it compulsory for every member of the Reserves to under-go a fitness test. Those that fail should get the boot,and use what is left to build a motivated and effective asset.

On my last annual camp we were made to partake in PT every evening,that included recruits,2*,3*,NCOs and Officers. Those who discovered those "magic injuries" before they even had their running gear out of the bag had to answer some serious questions from the Cadre staff,and had to go to the medic. But in fairness most did take part,and enjoyed it.

There was an obvious and visible effort to shake of the image many have of the RDF as nothing but a beering club,and I would like to think everyone who came off that camp were better for it. It was alot more team and fitness orientated. Not as many activities were organised around the mess.

There seems to be a mentality with regards the RDF is to go with quantity rather than quality. Any country would be more than delighted to have motivated,strong,fit and willing people lining up to join its military,but we seem to be unable to make the most of this fact.

Get the wasters out,and work with what you have left in a manner that repays their dedication to the organization.

Evd-Burner

iceage wrote: »

Beyond the absolute basics here ie. fitness, SAA, soldiering etc which should in fact be the total responsibilty of each of the particular RDF units I fear that everything else has to happen at the highest levels first. Start at the top and work your way down so to speak..the whole fitness thing is a fecking joke though guys.

Would there be a resistance so to speak from above if there was a major shake up? Actually has there been any word from the new Minister as to what hes got on the books? Is he keeping a low profile or is it a case of no mun-no fun still. This post is addressed to the RDF specifically.

The biggest problem with the reserves is employment legislation... I know that i've personally rang in sick to work at least a dozen times so that I could take part in some sort of an exercise or training. Also a big problem is dates changing all the time. E.g we have a weekend away in 2 weeks time and then it gets changed to the following week after everyone has booked time off work to be able to participate.

In terms of fitness levels my particular unit has pt once a week which is very benefiting to take part in, but again it should be mandatory because the people who go are already in good shape. Its the people who don't go who really need to go.

Avgas

OS119 wrote: »

i don't think a large reserve that plays a fundamental role within the Army's order of battle is possible within the current - and forseeable - Irish political context. the two things that the NATO use of reserves has shown is that those reservists must have decent employment protection in order to not just deploy, but to be sufficiently trained in order to be deployable, and that they need to be trained to a level where they are deployable after a relatively short period of build-up and OPTAG training. 2 months is the outside limit, 6 months is a waste of time - politicians won't sanction mobilisation of reserves until disaster stares them in the face, and at that stage a soldier who needs 6 months training is of no use to man nor beast."

Good points.

However, let me explain exactly where I'm coming from.

I'm starting with threat scenarios.....you draw up a matrix...on the X axis you have threat scenarios that vary in PROBABILITY from 'very unlikely' to 'almost certain-sure we're already doing this daily'. On the Y axis you draw up a scale of GRAVITY of the threat scenario, 'Not really serious/risky' to 'Major Threat to State Stability/Population/troop Safety'. You end up with four quadrants

1. scenarios that are remote, but low risk (Seizure of Rockall by Iceland/Ireland qualifying for the next world cup)
2. scenarios that are remote, but high risk (Terrorist dirty bomb outside US/Israeli embassy or NI Civil War...see below)
3. scenarios that are likely but generally low risk (fishery protection, SAR)
4. scenarios that are likely but often high risk (Peace Keeping, Peace Enforcement)

The ones you've got to watch are the likely/high risk and the remote/high risk....

There are some events that are remote and not very probable BUT if they did come to pass, they could be very severe threats indeed....

The most obvious long shot/ big problem would be a complete melt down in Northern Ireland.

How could this happen?

Well 'they haven't gone away'....just read the news. Dissident Republicans are active. For now their threat seems marginal, but who knows? What if in say 15 or 20 years from now a clear Catholic Nationalist electoral majority exists in Northern Ireland and they just have a referendum to join us?

My guess is that there would be quite a few 'Unionist/Loyalist' types who would not accept what for them would be a doomsday scenario. Many of these gents (and ladies) would have ex military training never mind paramilitary traditions which are extensive and deep. They would have no trouble stealing, buying, smuggling and making small arms and other weapons.

That scenario is not complete science fiction...it is in the Good Friday Agreement that such can happen by 'CONSENT'.

Congratulations! We've just inherited six new counties, billions more of debts, and a possibly large and well organised loyalist insurgency.

In that context, you would need an Irish state that would have to face up to a crisis unknown since the Civil War.....or the Emergency...you would need large amounts of infantry for what would become some type of COIN role....it might well be that 'neutral' third country peacekeepers might have to be deployed in that context....as part of a negotiated phasing/sharing or sovereignty.......and/or that British forces would remain in certain areas/districts....even so....you would need a lot of infantry battalions for security duties.....my guess is about about a dozen....

I'm not suggesting that force should be used to suppress such an insurgency (the Sri Lanka model)...even if they could (doubtful) ......but even just for containing the security problems and violence that it could create.....you would need large numbers of infantry.....

If our existing 9 RDF battalions were real that would be a good start (but they seem bogus....they could NOT be used in such a scenario)

If we could afford to keep 9 PDF inf battalions in barracks that would also be great (BUT...I don't think we can anymore after NAMA...better to have 3-4 battle groups)

If we could safely assume the British army will always be there to step in keep order...saving us the bother...we could forget this scenario...but we cannot make that assumption if the game changes through a 'democratic will of the majority'. They may well be only too glad to find a pretext to leave, or stick us with a share of the 'burden'.

So I think the only sensible economic way to plan for that type of 'NI nightmare' scenario, which to be honest should remain reasonably remote, is by building up solid reserve inf battalions.....I'm not saying that would be easy.....and you would need more than just five or six...

Recall.....

The Civil War saw Free State forces rise to over 50,000 to contain a serious insurgency...

At its height.... NI was soaking up I think up to 15 British infantry battalions...or equivalent...(may be wrong on the exact number)

Six months for mobilisation is useless?

Maybe your right OS119. But I was being conservative in terms of what you could expect...given where we are at now for the RDF.....and the bad image and legacy of the past history of reserves.....

The timing for this type of thing is hard to judge BUT it would probably not be like NATO's strategic reserves problem during the 1980s.....by the time they would have made it to the battlefield the Russian hoards may well have triumphed....well that was the (unrealistic?) fear....

However, in the scenario I've sketched out.....it may take months...even years to get to a situation of total melt down....you might well have the time to mobilize a battalion a month as the situation evolves.....and you would not want to be rushing more troops into a situation like that only until it becomes apparent that a total break down of authority/law and order has occurred.


"as for the regular army and its size, certainly 'my' doctrine could be downsized to four BattleGroups and their attendant support in order to keep one overseas, but if you took it down to three you'd have major problems in peacetime - it also would give you no contingency if something goes wrong."

Of course four would be better than three, and six even better still.....BUT ....remember NAMA. [:mad:]....and New Zealand...only appear to have 2 equivalent battle groups. [am I right?].....and nobody says they lack professionalism... even with such a small land force...they've managed to deploy up to 600 of their people on various missions overseas....they have their reserve battalions for a contingency from what I can discern.....

Avgas

OS119 wrote: »

i don't think a large reserve that plays a fundamental role within the Army's order of battle is possible within the current - and forseeable - Irish political context. the two things that the NATO use of reserves has shown is that those reservists must have decent employment protection in order to not just deploy, but to be sufficiently trained in order to be deployable, and that they need to be trained to a level where they are deployable after a relatively short period of build-up and OPTAG training. 2 months is the outside limit, 6 months is a waste of time - politicians won't sanction mobilisation of reserves until disaster stares them in the face, and at that stage a soldier who needs 6 months training is of no use to man nor beast."

Good points.

However, let me explain exactly where I'm coming from.

I'm starting with threat scenarios.....you draw up a matrix...on the X axis you have threat scenarios that vary in PROBABILITY from 'very unlikely' to 'almost certain-sure we're already doing this daily'. On the Y axis you draw up a scale of GRAVITY of the threat scenario, 'Not really serious/risky' to 'Major Threat to State Stability/Population/troop Safety'. You end up with four quadrants

1. scenarios that are remote, but low risk (Seizure of Rockall by Iceland/Ireland qualifying for the next world cup)
2. scenarios that are remote, but high risk (Terrorist dirty bomb outside US/Israeli embassy or NI Civil War...see below)
3. scenarios that are likely but generally low risk (fishery protection, SAR)
4. scenarios that are likely but often high risk (Peace Keeping, Peace Enforcement)

The ones you've got to watch are the likely/high risk and the remote/high risk....

There are some events that are remote and not very probable BUT if they did come to pass, they could be very severe threats indeed....

The most obvious long shot/ big problem would be a complete melt down in Northern Ireland.

How could this happen?

Well 'they haven't gone away'....just read the news. Dissident Republicans are active. For now their threat seems marginal, but who knows? What if in say 15 or 20 years from now a clear Catholic Nationalist electoral majority exists in Northern Ireland and they just have a referendum to join us?

My guess is that there would be quite a few 'Unionist/Loyalist' types who would not accept what for them would be a doomsday scenario. Many of these gents (and ladies) would have ex military training never mind paramilitary traditions which are extensive and deep. They would have no trouble stealing, buying, smuggling and making small arms and other weapons.

That scenario is not complete science fiction...it is in the Good Friday Agreement that such can happen by 'CONSENT'.

Congratulations! We've just inherited six new counties, billions more of debts, and a possibly large and well organised loyalist insurgency.

In that context, you would need an Irish state that would have to face up to a crisis unknown since the Civil War.....or the Emergency...you would need large amounts of infantry for what would become some type of COIN role....it might well be that 'neutral' third country peacekeepers might have to be deployed in that context....as part of a negotiated phasing/sharing or sovereignty.......and/or that British forces would remain in certain areas/districts....even so....you would need a lot of infantry battalions for border security duties.....my guess is about about a dozen....

I'm not suggesting that force should be used to suppress such an insurgency (the Sri Lanka model)...even if they could (doubtful) ......but even just for containing the security problems and violence that it could create.....you would need large numbers of infantry.....

If our existing 9 RDF battalions were real that would be a good start (but their bogus....they could NOT be used in such a scenario)

If we could afford to keep 9 PDF inf battalions in barracks that would also be great (BUT...I don't think we can anymore after NAMA...better to have 3-4 battle groups)

If we could safely assume the British army will always be there step in keep order...saving us the bother...we could forget this scenario...but we cannot make that assumption if the game changes through a 'democratic will of the majority'. They may well be only too glad to find a pretext to leave, or stick us with a share of the 'burden'.

So I think the only sensible economic way to plan for that type of 'NI nightmare' scenario, which to be honest should remain reasonably remote, is by building up solid reserve inf battalions.....I'm not saying that would be easy.....and you would need more than just five or six...

Recall.....

The Civil War saw Free State forces rise to over 50,000 to contain a serious insurgency...

At its height.... NI was soaking up I think up to 15 British infantry battalions...or equivalent...(may be wrong on the exact number)

Six months for mobilisation is useless?

Maybe your right OS119. But I was being conservative in terms of what you could expect...given where we are at now for the RDF.....and the bad image and legacy of the past history of reserves.....

The timing for this type of thing is hard to judge BUT it would probably not be like NATO's strategic reserves problem during the 1980s.....by the time they would have made it to the battlefield the Russian hoards may well have triumphed....well that was the (unrealistic?) fear....

However, in the scenario I've sketched out.....it may take months...even years to get to a situation of total melt down....you might well have the time to mobilize a battalion a month as the situation evolves.....and you would not want to be rushing more troops into a situation like that only until it becomes apparent that a total break down of authority/law and order has occurred.


"as for the regular army and its size, certainly 'my' doctrine could be downsized to four BattleGroups and their attendant support in order to keep one overseas, but if you took it down to three you'd have major problems in peacetime - it also would give you no contingency if something goes wrong."

Of course four would be better than three, and six even better still.....BUT ....remember NAMA. [:mad:]....and New Zealand...only appear to have 2 equivalent battle groups. [am I right?].....and nobody says they lack professionalism... even with such a small land force...they've managed to deploy up to 600 of their people on various missions overseas....they have their reserve battalions for a contingency from what I can discern.....

OS119

Avgas,

while i think you are right to be concerned about NI going tits up following unification - you're one of the few to think 'hang on, is this such a good idea?' - i don't think its worth worrying about.

if only because civil disturbance/terrorism on the scale of, say 1972/3, would be not unlike discovering that the sun is about to explode - it would be a disaster of such mangitude that it wouldn't matter if the Irish state had a defence budget of 25% of GDP, it would still be far outside the capabilities of such a small country to deal with. in 1972 the BA had some 25,000 troops in NI, with the standard 1:3 rotation, meaning that some 75,000 troops were needed to keep that level of force in place.

and i don't think 1972 went that well...

Tarzan007

OS119 wrote: »

Avgas,

while i think you are right to be concerned about NI going tits up following unification - you're one of the few to think 'hang on, is this such a good idea?' - i don't think its worth worrying about.

if only because civil disturbance/terrorism on the scale of, say 1972/3, would be not unlike discovering that the sun is about to explode - it would be a disaster of such mangitude that it wouldn't matter if the Irish state had a defence budget of 25% of GDP, it would still be far outside the capabilities of such a small country to deal with. in 1972 the BA had some 25,000 troops in NI, with the standard 1:3 rotation, meaning that some 75,000 troops were needed to keep that level of force in place.

and i don't think 1972 went that well...

The 75,000 British soldiers in the north were there combating the IRA and murdering and attacking civil rights marchers. Meanwhile the loyalists were covertly enjoying blind eyes been turned to them at best, covert support at worst.

Why do you possibly think Ireland would need 75,000 soldiers to deal with the Paisleyites ? I'd put money on it that if the IRA enjoyed the same amount of collusion from the Irish army as the loyalists got from the Brits, the IRA would wipe the floor with them in no time.

Morpheus

The 75,000 British soldiers in the north were there combating the IRA and murdering and attacking civil rights marchers. Meanwhile the loyalists were covertly enjoying blind eyes been turned to them at best, covert support at worst.

Why do you possibly think Ireland would need 75,000 soldiers to deal with the Paisleyites ? I'd put money on it that if the IRA enjoyed the same amount of collusion from the Irish army as the loyalists got from the Brits, the IRA would wipe the floor with them in no time.

Regardless of your comments on collusion etc, The Irish Defence Forces want nothing to do with any illegally armed group of terrorists whos doctrine allows them to kill innocent civilians in the name of an outdated cause that the majority of the population of the country have already voted to have no interest in.

Lets not forget the IRA murdered Irish Defence forces and Garda personel.

If this laughable course of history HAD occured the numerically and (in every other way) superior british forces of the time would have crushed both the terrorists AND the Irish Army and probably re occupied ireland to a certain degree.

if you dont mind me asking, what relevance has your comment got with regards to the title of this thread, that being the COMPARE IRISH & NEW ZEALAND DF... you would have known that if you had bothered to read the title, or maybe you just trawl threads all day looking to get them closed!!?

airvan

To make it worse almost everything in his post is either inaccurate or a lie. It's amazing how even recent history is distorted and manipulated.:(

iceage

Avgas wrote: »

they've managed to deploy up to 600 of their people on various missions overseas

Includes over 200 deployed in Bamian Province Afghanistan. Although it seems that New Zealand wants to phase out the NZ presence there, General Stanley McChrystal wants them to stay.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/commander-wants-nz-troops-stay-longer-3509651

They seem to have given a good account of themselves. Without any loses? Is that correct?

OS119

iceage wrote: »

Includes over 200 deployed in Bamian Province Afghanistan. Although it seems that New Zealand wants to phase out the NZ presence there, General Stanley McChrystal wants them to stay.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/commander-wants-nz-troops-stay-longer-3509651

They seem to have given a good account of themselves. Without any loses? Is that correct?

they've not suffered any fatalities, but have suffered a good number of serious casualties - the 'no losses' statistic is down to luck more than any particular operational methodology. they are superb soldiers with first class training, doctrine and military leadership - and because the NZ government knows that if you want your knife to work, you need to keep it sharp...

Morpheus

and because the NZ government knows that if you want your knife to work, you need to keep it sharp

even if it IS only a pen knife...

in comparison

the irish army might be a slightly blunt spork...

jack of all trades

master of none

iceage

Staying out of that one Morpheus!

Tarzan007

Morphéus wrote: »

Regardless of your comments on collusion etc, The Irish Defence Forces want nothing to do with any illegally armed group of terrorists whos doctrine allows them to kill innocent civilians in the name of an outdated cause that the majority of the population of the country have already voted to have no interest in.

Lets not forget the IRA murdered Irish Defence forces and Garda personel.

Well I agree, unlike your heros the Brits, the Irish Army does not have a policy of colluding with secret organiosations. As for a united Ireland been " an outdated cause ", far from it, poll after poll after poll has, and will, show that 80%+ of the people of the south want a united Ireland - unlike a wannabe SAS man like yourself.

If this laughable course of history HAD occured the numerically and (in every other way) superior british forces of the time would have crushed both the terrorists AND the Irish Army and probably re occupied ireland to a certain degree.

Obviously you have RTE's usual tripe If Lynch Had Invaded the North in mind. As someone asked in a previous thread on this isue, if the British were so all powerful and didn't care about the fallout of world opinion etc and could attack the south in any manner they wished, how come they couldn't go guns blazing with battalions of Brits, RAF etc into say South Armagh and which was effectively taken over by the IRA for 25 years thanks to handfuls of IRA men from the villages and farms of South Armagh and Monaghan ? And how come they didn't go all out and attack Iceland during the Cod War in 1970's - but instead had to limp away ?

if you dont mind me asking, what relevance has your comment got with regards to the title of this thread, that being the COMPARE IRISH & NEW ZEALAND DF... you would have known that if you had bothered to read the title, or maybe you just trawl threads all day looking to get them closed!!?

If you had bothered to read you would have seen I was replying to OSS19's post #21 where he brought in the issue of 1972 and 75,000 Brits been there. If you could take your head out of your arse and read a post properly in future.

Tarzan007

Morphéus wrote: »

even if it IS only a pen knife...

in comparison

the irish army might be a slightly blunt spork...

jack of all trades

master of none

Ah yes, a 'proud' Irishman. Thank God I'm a republican.

concussion

Tarzan007 wrote: »

As for a united Ireland been " an outdated cause ", far from it, poll after poll after poll has, and will, show that 80%+ of the people of the south want a united Ireland - unlike a wannabe SAS man like yourself.

Do you know what, I don't think I have ever had a conversation with someone on this topic. That tells me something about the support for taking back the six counties, unless I've managed to avoid an 80% of the population in my time. Do you have any links to these polls?

Edit: can a mod move this $hite into another thread, I really would like to see something constructive re: restructuring the DF

Poccington

I don't know how many times this Northern Ireland bull**** is going to keep popping up in topics but having to constantly deal with it is getting very tedious.

This thread has generated some good discussion on the future doctrine/capabilities of the DF.

The next person to go off topic in this thread will be going on a holiday.

OS119

thank fcuk for that.

ok, straw poll:

option 1. 6 BG based PDF - roughly as i outlined on page 1 - with each member spending about 6 months in every 36 months overseas.

option 2. 4 BG based PDF, as a slimmed down version of 'my' structure, with medium/heavy lift helicopters, each member being overseas for 6 months in every 24 months, and RDF members being mobilised for O/S tours in a force protection/pioneer role every 4 years or so...

your views?

Avgas

Phew...thank Christ somebody brought it back to the OP...my reference to NI melt down was a possible scenario..not something anyone of one of us want to see......and the subject was linked to what it would mean for force planning for the Irish DF...I've no interest in discussing the merits of NI conflict, past present or future on this thread.....

apologies to all If my post lent itself to a certain degree of "slippage" shall we say?.....Avgas can be naive in these matters...

Thanks OS119 for the numbers...I had read something like that...yeah 75,000 for 25,000 on the ground....big numbers .....no doubt.

Just to be an awkward sod.... I don't agree you just throw your hands in the air and say all bets are off with such 'doomsday' events...

Irish DF is the physical force branch of the insurance business of the state...have to have a plan for the 'unlikely but mental' category....

I don't think we'd need 75,000 ...nor could we ever produce 75,000 even if we struck oil off Salthill.......but you may in a "sustained period of tension and uncertainty" need to increase numbers well above 10,000.....that was my point.....but it got lost in the purple haze.......

So lets go to vote...like the British!.....

I'm for staying mean and lean...4 Battle groups...:) Option 2...the meanie option.....

iceage

Have to go with Avgas on this one. Option 2 with the medium/heavy lift heli's (Which are needed) and Reserve on Possible OS deployments every 4 years or so.

just an outsiders opinion of course.

Morpheus

Yeah,

im ashamed to say it but option 2 with more (bigger and really military) heli's makes a more mobile useable force (and makes more sense).

NOTE: I was a bit miffed earlier, as I have personal opinions somewhat contrary to someone else, I apologise if my comments dragged the thread off topic. The reply I got and the fact that one or two of my quotes were taken out of context while another quote was ignored completely, doesnt surprise me and almost changed my mood from tired and hungry and in need of tea to tired and hungry and in need of very strong coffee with no sugar... and i dont like coffee to begin with... Anyway like I said, apologies for rising to the bait so easily and almost killing the thread!

odin_ie

OS119 wrote: »

thank fcuk for that.

option 2. 4 BG based PDF, as a slimmed down version of 'my' structure, with medium/heavy lift helicopters, each member being overseas for 6 months in every 24 months, and RDF members being mobilised for O/S tours in a force protection/pioneer role every 4 years or so...

your views?

My model

I would say 5 BG based on a PDF Bn(5 Coy Strength), each with 1 Sqn of Cav, 1 Bty of Arty, 1 Coy of Engineers, and CSS units as needed. The Cav, Arty, and Engineers would all have regimental structure and the regiments would house the various schools and handle training for all bods joining these units in a centralised manner. The army would in theory have a strength of 7,000. One BG would be either on, or rolled for overseas deployment every 6 months, while one is preparing and one is standing down (in the event that no missions are there, the BG would be on a 6 month stand by to deploy on short notice).

As stated above, a Battalion would be 5 Coys, in one of these two models, a) 1x HQ Coy(HQ Element, Drivers, Signals, etc), 3x Rifle Coys (3 x Rifle Platoons, 1 x Weapons), 1x Support Coy (Support Weapons, Assault Pioneers, Recce Pln), or b) 1 x HQ & Services (Drivers, HQ Element, Sigs, Assault Pioneers and Recce Pln, Snipers, 60mm Mortars etc), 4 x Rifle Coys (3 x Rifle Platoons, 1 x Weapons).

Artillery Batteries would be 6 x 105mm guns, meaning we would probably need a total of about 50 x 105mm guns for the country to cover the PDF, RDF and Arty School for training.

Cavalry Squadrons this is where things get a little more difficult to decide upon. The options are a Recce element that would move forward of the BG, a Flank Protection/Screening Force, a quick reaction force, or a combination of all three. I have no idea what vehicles would be needed, as the role would have to be decided on.

Oh, and an increase in size of the ARW would be an added goal.

With the Army down to 7,000 bods, that leaves 1,500 bods that could be placed into the Navy and Aer Corps.

I will keep this part short. For the AC, medium and heavy lift Helis in numbers capable of troop transport of about a Coy plus(say 200 bods) per trip. Also, acquisition of transport Aircraft like the C-27J should be looked at.

The Navy, it is quite simple, more and larger ships. A bigger naval establishment might allow for crew rotation (ie, 2 weeks at sea, 3 weeks on shore per crew).

A ration of 1:2.5 of RDF to PDF is an achievable goal, with the RDF's goal initially being to come up to a 2 BG strength of people who can actually do their jobs within a 5 year period. Within 10 years, the first specialist reservists (engineers, medics, signals) should be moving into the deployment rotation in order to develop a core of reservists with overseas exp. Within 15 years, Infantry, Arty and Cav troops should be deploying starting off with Platoon strength in the infantry, and troops of Cav integrated into the PDF establishment and building to fill vacancies as needed.

If humanitarian relief missions like Haiti were to be offered, the RDF would be tasked to take these up.

old_aussie

Does Ireland have conscription?

It's a way of boosting the numbers at any given time and training the population to be able to mobilise if needed.

Morpheus

nope we dont have conscription!

cyrusdvirus

Funnily enough i was discussing this with my (kiwi) sis in law a while back. She served in their Navy reaching the rank of Lt Cdr, and was of the opinion that a stronger navy would be needed here, with a bigger aviation department. And I'm not talking CV's or the like just one or 2 modern helicopter capable, frigates, hell even a couple of Perry class ships would be suitable.

And a much larger rotary wing capability in the Aer Corp too.

As concerns the land forces, i honestly have to say i have no real knowledge of the structure of a BG, apart from what I've read here so can't pass opinion.

But if there is to be a restructuring of the PDF it has to encompass all branches.

Avgas

All this talk of Navies and Air corps...is fresh air...... a welcome break from my NI DOOMSDAY....things are grim enough....

The Kiwi Lt/cdr is spot on. I'd start working with the Naval service...sorry Navy..and Air Corps first...then work back to land.......

Problem: all air and naval stuff is massive money.....and we're broke.

Not sure what has happened to Navy plans for multi-role logistics ships...on ice..?

some replacements for the Emer class have been made AFAIK.....

Also the Air corps best asset is the Aw139 class of chopper BUT they either need more or these, or something a bit bigger and more robust.....

I like the poster who mention 5 Battle groups..v. good post....well thought...

just I don't think we have the money for even 2-3!

Avgas

Thought I'd find some numbers to reinforce my more banal than usual comment that we're broke and air and naval stuff is pricy....

Odin mentioned the Baby Herc C-27J Spartan. (lovely plane)...can we afford?

Romania eventually after wrangling with EADS over the CASA/EADS 295 type and the Italian/American ‘Baby Herc’….got 7 of the C27J Spartan for…217m EURO……..about 31m each…….
See:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/alenias-c27j-staked-to-lead-role-in-negotiations-for-romanian-contract-02847/

ANSWER; Yes if in Airfix 1:72 scale only.

There is no way the general public, Joe Duffy, Michael D. Higgins, and most of the Department of Financial Mismanagement or the War Ministry are going to ever agree to that type of spend…….with 400,000+ on the dole……


Hate to be depressing. But we need realism. Kiwi’s realized this and sensibly axed their Skyhawks and fancy F16 replacements. You can’t do everything if you’re small…in fact you can’t do much……

COST OF BATTLEGROUPS-CAN WE AFFORD?
I have no figures on the cost of setting up, equipping and running a Battle Group but I did come across this story (from last year) where Sweden admitted it was frustrated the battle groups concept have never been used…..and that they had so far spent a cool 100 million euro on hosting and setting up the Nordic battle-group…….see http://euobserver.com/9/28627

Now…changing our 3 brigades /9 inf bns into a force of FOUR Battle groups built around 4 reinforced Bns would actually realize savings in the long term…but in the short term there would be a ‘hump’ of re-organization costs…plus the standard of equipment would have to be raised a bit…more night vision…more choppers….etc.

ANSWER; Like Obama...Yes We Can....but over time and on the cheap initially...


COST OF CHOPPERS or NAMA 2.0: CAN WE AFFORD?

As for helicopters…..you may as well create a separate NAMA to pay for them…

One discussion I read estimates the cost of a fancy NH90 (which the Kiwis have!) at between 35-45m Euro each!

This site gives a unit price of 12m dollars for a new Aw139….http://www.deagel.com/Commercial-Helicopters/AW139_a000127001.aspx

A few more would make sense.....but at 12m each.....:(

By way of comparison a Russian Hip (used by Czechs, Croatia, and ordered by Argentina, Saudi Arabia and Thailand) are reputed to cost 3.2m dollars….say maybe 4-5m euros with proper avionics and other bits…..see, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mi-8-specs.htm

I like this quote i lifted from the wikipedia entry for Mi-17 (so it must be 100%)

"On 28 October 2008, the Royal Thai Army announced a deal to buy 6 Mi-17 to meet its requirement of a medium-lift helicopter, marking the first time the Thai military will acquire Russian aircraft instead of American.[4] Flight International quotes the Thai army’s rationale: “We are buying three Mi-17 helicopters for the price of one Black Hawk. The Mi-17 can also carry more than 30 troops, while the Black Hawk could carry only 13 soldiers. These were the key factors behind the decision."

ANSWER: We can afford a few BORAT choppers OR a few surplus US/French Choppers at a generous discount if their feeling generous OR only a very few in dribs and drabs of BRAND NEW CHOPPERS....but only by some kind of financial gimmickery....

MrConservative

As a New Zealander I thought I should give some input into the debate. I have followed with interest the Irish Defence Force and remember fondly my 2 visits to Ireland. I was very impressed with the professionalism of the defence staff I meet and after a couple of huge nights even more impressed with their stamina.

There are a couple of differences as some have pointed out. Frigates for one. However this is more of a snap shot from our end of our current strengths and weaknesses. The RNZN currently has 2 Anzacs which will soon undergo a comprehensive refit and upgrade including ESSM. Also we have a new government here which is under going a Defence Review for the next 25 years, which will reshape the forces. It has been common knowledge that the new government will return to a 3 frigate fleet and possibly 4, in the future.

Lately we have introduced a sealift ship and two offshore patrol vessels. These have had some difficulties in their design and introduction and are a classic example of adhoc policy making by politicians and involvement in the design and role orientation by Treasury. Thus they underdeliver in terms of the full gambit of what the military actually needs. There have also been four smaller patrol ships introduced. These are actually surpassing expectations in terms of range and ability to handle high sea states.

Further on the horizon for the RNZN is the purchasing of a new fleet oiler, however because of the relatively small size of our frigate fleet and the need for further sealift capability the RNZN is proposing a Joint Support Ship design. In many ways this maybe an improved sealift ship design. There are also a couple auxilllary vessels required for replacement in the next 5 years for Survey, Dive and MCM. Thus it may be in ten or so years that the RNZN will be back towards a 14 or 15 ship Navy. One other significant difference is that 5 of our Navy ships helicopter capable. Helicopters transform what a navy can do. I struggle to think how the INS actually copes without them. The RNZAF operates 5 SH-2(G) Sea Sprites in this role.

The NZ Army is structured around two Land Force Groups. These are each centred around a regular infantry battalion with supporting arms. 2 NZ Land Force Group is motorised using the NZLAV III and the other 3 Land Force Group is Light Infantry. There is on paper a third manuveur force on an adhoc basis, that being the residual of the Field Regiment and the QAMR. This adhoc force formed the basis of one of the Battalion Group Rotations in Timor Leste. Intergrated into these LFG's are Terroritorial Battalion Groups of which we have six in total all geographically based. These are mostly infantry based but some have specialisations such as 6 Batt which shines in the Recon role, 2 Batt in the Sapper Role, and 4 Batt in the field surgical role as it has a unit based around the Otago University Medical School. One major difference in the Irish Defence Force and the NZDF is that our Reserve Soldiers are deployable. The current RAMSI contribution is a Reserve unit. Everywhere the NZDF fights there are Reservists. We in fact have members of our elite 1 NZSAS Group who are reservists or have undergone selection and continuance from Reserve Units including recent VC winner Bill Apiata. The NZSAS has been greatly expanded over the last 8 years and now includes 2 full Sabre Squadrons and a Commando Squadron which specialises in the CT black role. It is highly probable that following the defence review that fast reaction force who possess high level skills in the green role. Basically a return to the Rangers role that existed in the last few years of the Cold War period.

The RNZAF has some strategic lift capability in 2 B757 Combi aircraft and 5 C-130H's in the Tactical lift area. It has been identified that this is a weakness as servicability issues operating aging Herc's in an era of ever increasing roles is creating tasking issues. One solution that has got the green light is the purchase of a light transport plane that can also cover the Inshore Patrol and Multi-engine training role. Multi-Mission versions of the Q300 or CN-235 are been investigated. These are to replace the five small B-200's that have found to be very limited in suitablity. We are in the process of recieving eight NH-90 helicopters and five A-109LUH helicopters. It is also been strongly hinted that more A-109's are to be purchased as currently the RNZAF operates 19 helicopters in the field support role and the last government only ordered 13 due to cost blowouts. Tasking Tempo's are such that only new 13 utility choppers wont meet vital needs and just wear out airframes at an unsustainable rate. One area were the RNZAF is clearly stronger than the Air Corps is in Maritime Patrol. 5 Sqd operates six Orion P-3K2's which are being currently upgraded. They are a cornerstone capability in the NZDF toolbox and are very busy not just within the NZ EEZ, but also in the Pacific and occassional trips up into the Gulf.

It is was pointed out by someone earlier in this thread that that the NZDF was right to get rid of the A-4 Skyhawks after cancelling the 28 F-16's ordered in 1998. This is a remark which is patently wrong. Just like the government at the time went against official advice and its own Air Combat Review which said that the NZDF needed a baseline of between 14-16 combat aircraft. The removal of the fast air capability has created far reaching doctrinal and capability gaps in the way in which our Defence Force operates. The very consequences that the ignored government review said would happen has happened. We are very weak in terms of being able to operate in an integrated level in combat that involves JTAC and Interdiction. This is a direct failing resulting from the removal of fast air. The rapid Land Force decline in understanding, training and experience in working with fast air above CGL has had far reaching consequences. This means that it is immensely difficult for the NZDF to be effective at Battle Group level at UN Chp VII operations. The bottom line is that if an INTERFET happened today we would not be confident or comfortable with troop effectiveness and security if the event escalated. Two years ago a RN review of our sea-training also exposed a lack of effectiveness of our frigate force in terms of dealing with air adversaries. Up until ten years ago the RNZAF was possibly the most dangerous low level maritime attack outfit in the world. You train as you fight and in terms of the sharp end of NZDF fighting capability thus the lost of our 3 air combat squadrons was very regretable.

Unfortunately it is very hard for civilians and politicians to understand the ultimate implications and consquences of their actions or worldviews. In the modern context the Air-Land Sea-Space operational matrix is where it is at in the joint operational sense. We the NZDF were becoming irrelevant for anything above peacekeeping and to be honest peacekeeping only buys respect it does not buy or get you influence in our part of the world. Our close regional defence partners are well along the way towards that and to remain in the game of trade and diplomatic influence and access within ASEAN a nation like New Zealand has to make its contribution or at least be ready and be seen to be prepared to make its contribution. Nevertheless there is the capability of at least a modest return to CAS/A-Shp training that may right the unbalance. Firstly the improved partnership arrangements with Singapore and Australia after a few years talking past each other and secondly we still have 17 servicable and unsold 1990's era Aermachi MB-339CB aircraft that can be returned to service following an avionics upgrade to at least offer a training capability that can repair the weaknesses. Whether that is to happen at this stage is yet unknown.

Avgas

Thanks for the post Mr. Conservative. Found it v. informative...some of it I was aware...other stuff less so.

Still don't agree at all with you about the cancellation of F16s-it was I who was saying it was the right move!

It was a political decision for sure-but there is nothing wrong with that in every case. I know it was unpopular with NZDF people and I was aware that the NZ skyhawk crews were excellent......so it seems a terrible waste....

BUT....

Who is going to penetrate NZ airspace....where is the credible air defence threat?

Your central argument for why they needed them is because the NZ battle-group needs support...yeah, agreed...but..... 28 F16s..!!!!

Or you say they need to train with such aircraft so they can operate effectively with Allies in battle group formation.....but surely that is an argument for joint training with likely allies (foremost the Aussies) you'd be deploying with, not for buying your own F16 fleet?

2-3 F16s would pay for an entire Kiwi battlegroup to be sent somewhere exotic and play with the Americans and others?

In reality wouldn't airpower be more likely coming from US Carriers or Australian F18s?

Maybe such aircraft would be required if your doctrine had a focus on unilateral NZ only interventions......but for many small Island nations that NZ may have an 'interest' in, the F16s would be overkill and for other bigger places further away...going in on your own would not be a sensible option....

Something has to give....the list of gear you describe is v. expensive.

It would have Irish DF eyes drooling with envy and crying bitter tears of regret that we're not more like Kiwis....(just think of the Rugby team we could have!).

I 100% agree with your comments about helicopters on ships BUT would add that maybe for some role UAVs can now provider better value and do many roles......

I also note and found intriguing your comment that Kiwi reservists can serve overseas....do they have to pass some kind of formal selection for this?

Also another question....

Do the Orions have a ship strike capability with say Harpoons or even dual use torpedoes....?

MrConservative

Avgas wrote: »

Thanks for the post Mr. Conservative. Found it v. informative...some of it I was aware...other stuff less so.

Still don't agree at all with you about the cancellation of F16s-it was I who was saying it was the right move!

It was a political decision for sure-but there is nothing wrong with that in every case. I know it was unpopular with NZDF people and I was aware that the NZ skyhawk crews were excellent......so it seems a terrible waste....

BUT....

Who is going to penetrate NZ airspace....where is the credible air defence threat?

Your central argument for why they needed them is because the NZ battle-group needs support...yeah, agreed...but..... 28 F16s..!!!!

Or you say they need to train with such aircraft so they can operate effectively with Allies in battle group formation.....but surely that is an argument for joint training with likely allies (foremost the Aussies) you'd be deploying with, not for buying your own F16 fleet?

2-3 F16s would pay for an entire Kiwi battlegroup to be sent somewhere exotic and play with the Americans and others?

In reality wouldn't airpower be more likely coming from US Carriers or Australian F18s?

Maybe such aircraft would be required if your doctrine had a focus on unilateral NZ only interventions......but for many small Island nations that NZ may have an 'interest' in, the F16s would be overkill and for other bigger places further away...going in on your own would not be a sensible option....

Something has to give....the list of gear you describe is v. expensive.

It would have Irish DF eyes drooling with envy and crying bitter tears of regret that we're not more like Kiwis....(just think of the Rugby team we could have!).

I 100% agree with your comments about helicopters on ships BUT would add that maybe for some role UAVs can now provider better value and do many roles......

I also note and found intriguing your comment that Kiwi reservists can serve overseas....do they have to pass some kind of formal selection for this?

Also another question....

Do the Orions have a ship strike capability with say Harpoons or even dual use torpedoes....?

No the Orions are not wired for Harpoons. They would need to be rewired with 1776 Databus. This should have been done during the last upgrade but the same government who cancelled the F-16's also cancelled the project. The torp replacement project is still being considered, but has a green light. It is likely that a stand-off weapon on the Orions will be considered in the defence review. Currently the only capability is Mavericks off the Seasprites. Simply not good enough.

The F-16's were never about defending NZ airspace nor has any aircraft being bought on the predeliction of an air launched attack on NZ since the days of the Vampires and P-51. The A-4's and Canberra's before them were for CAS/Interdiction. Only with the A-4 did we get into the A/Shp business. The F-16 was for the continuation of those roles. It was also part of NZ's contribution under CDR with Australia and FPDA in the region.

The offer from the Yanks was for 28 which was to have a total cost of $NZ630 million including MLU, weapons package, and support spread over 10 years in a lease to buy arrangement. To operate them was to cost around $150m p.a. They were to be essentially the equal of C/D's after 5 years of transition upgrade and said to be the quickest F-16's around. Of the 28 only 22 were to be operational. Those 22 were to be direct replacements of the 22 A-4's we had in service with 75 Sqd and 2 Sqd before the incidents over the last couple of years in service downed a couple. 2 Sqd was based in Nowra in NSW and provided air aggressor training for the RAAF and worked up the RAN Eastern Fleet under CDR. 75 Sqd was based in Ohakea and was the prime Sqd. The remaining 6 airframes were to be held in reserve storage or for attrition spares. These 6 aircraft were not going to recieve the MLU. They would be stripped for parts when needed thus saving money and time. Meaning we would have 22 aircraft operational of which 18 would always be servicable. Eighteen was the magic number from years of RNZAF experience - however they could have worked with 14-16 if some trimming was under taken regarding tasking capacity.

The problem with joint training is that NZ has suffered over the last 8 years due to not having constant reliable and frequent access to fast jet capability. We are lucky if we get a flight of 4 F-18's over the ditch for 3 days every 12 months. You cannot seriously work up your Anzacs or a Battalion to DLOC level with that minute amount of attention. Thus the NZDF has seriously suffered from attrophy in this regard. You cannot safely deploy above Chp VI in this case. You can probably get away with it, but it is not by the book doctrine. The other point is that when you take a backseat and allow other to direct and dictate your forces even within a close coalition environment there is a loss of independence over the operations that you are involved in. Even in INTERFET we were not fully briefed on what RAAF taskings were. New Zealanders do have a problem with that. What of the implications for attached units into our battalion groups such as Irish and the Canadians. Where do they stand if they were ever attached into a NZ Battle Group as has happened in the past. We do not always agree with the Aussies btw.

I dont get the point about the 2-3 F-16's thing and its relation to a Battle Group. Are thinking cost wise. If so that is a myth. Operationally to deploy a BG for 6 months is considerably more than a Squadron in a Chp VII level engagement. That is why some NATO nations were happy with the arms length deployment of F16's in Astan than the more expensive deployment of troops. Far less risky in terms of loss of life.

As for the Pacific NZ has about 4 island states in which it is directly responsible for their defence and EEZ needs. They are more likely to be vunerable to direct influence by an unfriendly power or resource hungry power in the maritime sense than NZ. Every few years 75 Sqd was sent up to the islands on exercise. Basically these were fly the flag events and a message sender to the Russian fishing vessels that used to sneak around in those days. More often these days it is our friends from Nth Asia. The thing is also the Pacific is not where our trade is. It is in Asia. Yes we have a responsibility but it is not where we make our money. We have around 4000-5000ks of sealanes and airspace that our people and products travel through in huge volumes. We play our part in this via the frigates and the orions. It also used to be our ACF which provided 20% of the ANZAC Air Power. It is our contribution to regional trade security. Also Interfet has taught us and the australians who have politically taken it onboard more than we have, that the US does not always want to show up in force and that we have responsibilities in our own trading region.

The other point is that a coalition member in Chp VII and above must be self sufficent if it wants to a) meet tactical objectives and b) keep its land forces safe. There are no gaurantees that a kiwi JTAC would get prompt service from the RAAF or RSAF and worse from others - they also struggle for airframes when alligned with operational tasking. We have had cases of SAS lucky to get out of Dodge safely due to coalition air support in Astan turning up late. This point has been recently rammed homed to your defence minister whilst he made a visit to Waiouru when the RAAF F-18's came over for there annual duty free shopping trip.

As for UAV's and I think you must mean rotary UAV's such as the naval fire scout. They have their role but as yet their is no ASW capability. When you live in a region of 150 subs like we do it is a factor. I has also been reported that UAV's may take on the role of the Orions when they are due to retire in 2025. An RQ-4 is half the price of a P-8. We have the 4th largest EEZ so we need more than a couple of CASA 235's.

Last point regarding our reserve soldiers. They volunteer and then are trained to meet the objective. If they are good enough to be in the unit in the first place they are good enough to be deployed. That is the expectation that virtually all meet with flying colours.

In my view the idea put across by some previously about the Irish RDF having just three Battalions Groups of high performing, well equiped and dedicated troops and in my opinion with a single command HQ thus of around 3500 personnel, troops who can be deployed to round out the PDF is an excellent idea. It may save the organisation from idiots such as politicians whom I have worked with on occassion. One must prune the tree every once in a while to make it stronger and make it grow.

Avgas

You know your stuff Mr. Conservative!

It is great to read posts like this which are not about kickboxing homophobes, etc.:)

I will defer somewhat to superior knowledge and admit grudging defeat...well...we're never going agree on whether ditching the F16 was or was not dumb...I would just say IMHO it was more marginal and in the balance as decisions go..... Kiwi defence forces punch well above their weight without them.......as you say in your own post sometimes you've got to prune the tree....

I was kind of hoping you'd tell me the Orions were wired for Harpoon...because that would fill (partially) the sea-strike role the Skyhawks had...at least to an extent......but you say they axed that upgrade as well.. (now that was dumb when you've just axed your air-sea strike).

I think spending 150m (NZ dollars?) a year for CAS...and to prevent fratricide (I'm crudely paraphrasing you there... but forgive me) is steep......its logical what you say.....but its cost/benefit for me....coming from Ireland....150m any currency would be a fantasy budget allocation for us........especially given the current state of our public finances......

The issue of whether you can rely on other people, like the USAF/RAF, to do CAS or CSAR to get YOUR people out of trouble when maybe THEIR people are in deeper trouble somewhere else is a thorny perennial.....in an ideal world small nations would deploy with 100% of their own backup on any joint missions....but small nations being small can never afford all of that ..Am I right that the Aussies do not deploy their own CAS/F18 to Astan? (I know they sent F18s in 2003 to Iraq...open to correction on this....).....

Who does their CAS/CSAR?

You make the point that your lucky to see 4xF18s 3 days a year..its a good point and puts Irish DF inexperience on working with fast jet CAS into a certain unforgiving light shall we say.....but surely for some of that 150m annual spend you would have set aside for the F16s, you could have simply bought friendly people in to come over a bit more...?

Indonesia have some nice Russia Su27s....I'm sure their OC would be amenable to an offer....:rolleyes:

BTW wouldn't the more logical thing have been a joint procurement for some Aussie F18s.....was that ever mooted?

The parts of your post where I'm in total agreement are towards the end.

"Also Interfet has taught us and the australians who have politically taken it onboard more than we have, that the US does not always want to show up in force and that we have responsibilities in our own trading region."

Yep. You could carve that in stone somewhere in Brussels to remind the assorted Eurocrats and various national delegations of the way the world now works.

As for UAV's and I think you must mean rotary UAV's such as the naval fire scout. They have their role but as yet their is no ASW capability.

Agreed. I was thinking mainly rotary types but I'm still waiting for somebody to produce a small blimp type UAV.....could be a b****gger to land in a cross wind....but..how hard can it be in general...? It could do ASW eventually.
(Okay...that is WALT.)

Finally....

They volunteer and then are trained to meet the objective. If they are good enough to be in the unit in the first place they are good enough to be deployed. That is the expectation that virtually all meet with flying colours.


This in a nutshell totally explains the essence of difference between Kiwi DF and Irish DF. It should be laminated and issued to all prospective RDF recruits.

MrConservative

Possibly Avgas we were/can afford an air strike capability as we do not gear up a fair chunk of our DF to fly politicians around. That 150m p.a was buying a lot more than CAS mate. I think I covered the broad strokes in my previous posts. In NZ there is only a tiny allocation of VIP hours available. Only twice in the last 12 months has the PM travelled overseas using a RNZAF plane and has only used a B200 for 7 hours. Thats it. He flies Air NZ or pays for out of his own pocket a hired helicopter just so he can open a community centre on a saturday morning before winging back to watch his kids play sport in the afternoon. A cabinet minister has to go by car or scheduled flight. This MATS stuff is crazy in my view. Not that I am here to bag the IDF, however I really think they and the public are being short changed. A Gulfstream IV, B200 and a Lear 45 and I understand that the EC135’s have been comandeered at times, all to jetset around those on the Dublin gravy train.
I look at the orbat of the IAC and wonder if it is the right fit. I really think you guys are top heavy on MATS or could do it another way (Id kill it personally and redirect resources into other things). You seem to be light on maritime patrol and transport capability also. There is also a need for a rationalisation of types. Nine different aircraft types spread across 28 aircraft. There are cheap ways to get around this problem. Also I dont understand the rationale behind the policy to limit the IAC to deploy overseas.
What to do? Beats me!
As for an answer to your OZ question.
The RAAF in Astan at present is flying the scan eagle UAV,s a couple of C130's, Chinooks and P-3's. They are also providing the air op tasking and radar installations for combat operations in Sth Astan. They thus direct the airspace there. There is at present is no need for them to provide traditional combat air support for the 3 combat teams from 6RAR as it is covered by the ISAR pool. If that pool of willing folk weakens then it may be possible that the F-18's go back in or maybe they will get to deploy their ARH Tigers when they are sorted. Besides I am assuming that the 6RAR are probably doing urban POE ops rather than open country stuff - not that I really care that much to find out what the skippy's are up to as long as they dont interfere with the locals of the four legged variety.:eek: That said the ADF are in my book probably the best trained and equiped defence force in the world for their size. They are very very good.

Avgas

Good post Mr. Conservative....

I would not only join you 100% in axing all our bogus MATS assets...but...many Irish people would like to use our entire political class for target practice for the army...never mind fly them anywhere.....

Now ....in case the moderators or anyone else construe that as an incitement to violence I should stress I'm totally joking here okay? [:)]....

Avgas is a peace-loving (through strong defence), (generally) law-abiding, and (usually) moderate drinking citizen who just happens to have an interest in advanced weapon systems.

And yes we have perhaps a few politicians who are bordering on the okay/vaguely competent. But not many.

On defence matters the entire Irish political establishment would earn an F grade. Actually on filling potholes, getting working public transport, clean streets, developing and blowing an advanced economy, and just about anything else...they would earn an F grade.

The will be in with a sporting chance for the Robert Mugabe Good Governance Prize 2010 I reckon.

So let them walk, jog, take the bus or buy Ryanair tickets like everyone else. And I say no more ministerial cars till unemployment drops to 100,000 and even then on electric tricycles or something.

Till then they can use the stock of rusting faded Nissan Patrols the Army have.

airvan

Indeed Mr Conservative you've hit the nail on the head re the MATS thing. Far too much of the Air Corps is devoted to carrying what is really civvie work. In fact it has been argued that the 139s were chosen not so much for the miltary capability but because in effect they are executive helicopters painted green. Whether or not the Air Corps should be deployed overseas is neither here nor there. As the 139s wouldn't survive five minutes in a harsh operating environment let alone a hostile DZ.

What is needed is serious assessment of the Air Corps role and the DF as a whole which we won't get anytime soon because of relative ignorance of defence realities displayed by our glorious politicians of all colours not just the government parties.

MrConservative

Avgas wrote: »

Good post Mr. Conservative....

I would not only join you 100% in axing all our bogus MATS assets...but...many Irish people would like to use our entire political class for target practice for the army...never mind fly them anywhere.....

Now ....in case the moderators or anyone else construe that as an incitement to violence I should stress I'm totally joking here okay? [:)]....

Avgas is a peace-loving (through strong defence), (generally) law-abiding, and (usually) moderate drinking citizen who just happens to have an interest in advanced weapon systems.

And yes we have perhaps a few politicians who are bordering on the okay/vaguely competent. But not many.

On defence matters the entire Irish political establishment would earn an F grade. Actually on filling potholes, getting working public transport, clean streets, developing and blowing an advanced economy, and just about anything else...they would earn an F grade.

The will be in with a sporting chance for the Robert Mugabe Good Governance Prize 2010 I reckon.

So let them walk, jog, take the bus or buy Ryanair tickets like everyone else. And I say no more ministerial cars till unemployment drops to 100,000 and even then on electric tricycles or something.

Till then they can use the stock of rusting faded Nissan Patrols the Army have.

No let the buggers walk. :P
You posts have made me think what would I do if I was able to give my 2 cents worth or whatever you call it over there now since the pence went wherever. Though I am playing with fire here I know, what would I do to sort out the IAC orbat. So without any reference notes and only a cursory knowlege on the topic – and the fact that I’m bored and in a cheeky mood this morning, that I will have a go.
You should get around $13m for the G-IV and about $2m for the B200 based on the used market. They would be gone burgers! You can keep the Lear for MATS – my concession. The Cessnas are to be replaced soonish IIRC. They would only provide change. So what can be done with USD$15 million or Euro12m. Actually not alot. But if there was another Eur75m kicked in from somewhere (Hey basically thats the 150m kiwi we would have spent on keeping F-16’s aloft each year), and that 75m spread over 5 years then that is a realistic amount to play with. Basically finding eur15m p.a. funding towards a total pool of Eur87m. Now you could save that 15m a year from restructuring the army and down sizing it into a leaner meaner version of itself. A regular force based around 3 Battle Groups at its centre should only amount to 7500. The Reserve need only be 3500-4000 again based around 3 Battle Group formations. That should save some money.
So the requirements are for a cessna replacement for basic flight training. Some utility transport and some maritime patrol.
Basic training and observation work is easy. The Diamond DA20 costs about Eur150000. Six up and a simulator for around the million euro mark. From there most air forces jump into aircraft like the PC-9 so no issues.
Now for the big spend based on the recent Portugal proposal two CN-295M’s should get in at around Eur56m with the palletised mission system meaning that it can quick change between troop transport, cargo, SAR, and maritime roles. OK I have just spent57m euros. Now that leaves Eur30m to go.
A couple more EC-135’s should chew up the best part of Eur 11m which leaves just 19m more for the cream.
Three Beechcraft C-90Gti’s for multi-engine conversion and light utility transport, liason and coastwatch back up will chew up a further 9m euro. Which leaves just 10m to go. That should be able to buy a reasonable Boeing 737-400 on the used market for troop transport / additional airlift / VIP.
Second thoughts – I’d sell the Lear then because I notice that IAC provide an old NBI for police work and rough field landings. That should get 2 of the brilliant PAC 750XL’s made by us Kiwi’s. Great for jumps training!
Ive hypothetically sold off your MATS fleet and spent another Eur75m on top spread over 5 years. So what have I ended up with for the IAC.
2 x CASA 295’s, 3 x Beechcraft C-90Gti’s, 1 x Boeing 737-300, 2 x EC-135’s, and 2 x PAC 750XL to add to what you have already got.
All you would need then is some of those plane thingy's with the bolt on whiz bang sticks and you'd really be in business!:D

Avgas

I decided your last missive was so good its worthy of a new thread...I hope you don't mind.....?

(Avgas is a bit of a cheeky beggar)

So I've started a thread 'what new aircraft for Irish air corps'?

If its burried here at the end of NZ/Irish thread people won't see it perhaps and its moved away from the OP quite a bit.....

I think we'd have grave difficulty putting together 15m euros p.a. But as an exercise, one can still think things through a bit.

BTW there is also a fascinating discussion on the Irish economy forum under SOC about comparing New Zealand/Irish economy.

Cheers.